Should be fun. I am excited to see the results. This is always the most fun part of the year. Rockwall doesn't have a ton of depth but the kids who need to be stepping up seem to be stepping up so I am hoping for some greatness. Good luck to all schools!

I think this is a ridiculous way to make tests "more difficult". Art, Econ, and Science especially are tests those top scorers usually finish with 10+ minutes left anyway. Adding 5 questions will probably do nothing. It will just make looking at scores really confusing when we see a tie for Science gold with a score of 981.8, which is just strange.

Rockwall will be putting on our usual, gigantic, USAD EASY tournament the last Saturday of October as usual. The date is October 27, 2018.

We are already looking forward to it. I will post the actual registration information at a later date, but go ahead and save the date if you are interested. You can contact me at lucas.beville@rockwallisd.org if you have any questions.

A brief preview: cut the subjectives down to two by combining speech (500pts) and interview (500pts) but make speech only impromptu and make impromptu specifically related to the AcDec topic . Doing this cuts the man power needs by about 40%. Have the interview first (5 minutes) follow with the impromptu (4 minutes) scored by the same judges....More later

But then we are talking about Academic Nonathlon..... doesn't have as nice of a ring to it

Our team finished 3rd again. We're moving up to large schools next year and starting over because my entire team is graduating (yikes). We had an incredibly hard-working student that we all LOVE finish first overall honors, and we all cried. He cried, his mom cried, the team cried, the coaches cried...we were just so happy for the kid. He has worked so hard and deserves it so. We also had a varsity student finish second overall after finishing fifth last year. We were so pleased for him (although he was hoping for first). They've earned almost 9k in scholarships in a couple years and I am not ready to think about a team that doesn't include them next year.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is that this is all reactive instead of proactive. Having watched the California State competition and be up close with the top teams, the big LAUSD coaches make sure during the coaches meetings in the Fall and at the competitions that every single question regarding guidelines and subjective is adhered to while making sure it is happening during the competitions. The amount of intensity they bring is crazy, but it's because they work so hard that they just want to make sure they have a fair shot. In regards to Eberhard's "get used to it or quit" statement, that's essentially what you have to do or work hard enough to create measure so that something like this doesn't happen again.

I feel bad that both teams have to go through this as everything I've seen or heard from them has shown an incredible amount of care/passion for this program.

For sure. Texas coaches are just as intense. The problem here is that the medium/small ran low on volunteers so they just ran with what they had. And that should not have happened because now there is so much ambiguity......

"should not have happened"... "should not have happened"... "should not have happened".... story of AcaDec. get used to it.

I am definitely already used to it....

For the past 4 years we have hosted the biggest meet in the country/world/of all time (40+ schools and 800+ kids) so I know about issues in running a meet (thanks to Evil Dr Calculus for saving our lives). And those meets don't even have subjectives.

But the fact that there wasn't enough judges to properly judge a state meet, which is the meet that matters more than any other, is enough of a mishap that could warrant an appeal.... I may be wrong, but this appeal has nothing to do with unfair scoring. It is about the fact that the medium/small meet didn't meet the minimum requirement for judges which may/may not have affected the outcome.

My biggest problem with this whole issue is that this is all reactive instead of proactive. Having watched the California State competition and be up close with the top teams, the big LAUSD coaches make sure during the coaches meetings in the Fall and at the competitions that every single question regarding guidelines and subjective is adhered to while making sure it is happening during the competitions. The amount of intensity they bring is crazy, but it's because they work so hard that they just want to make sure they have a fair shot. In regards to Eberhard's "get used to it or quit" statement, that's essentially what you have to do or work hard enough to create measure so that something like this doesn't happen again.

I feel bad that both teams have to go through this as everything I've seen or heard from them has shown an incredible amount of care/passion for this program.

For sure. Texas coaches are just as intense. The problem here is that the medium/small ran low on volunteers so they just ran with what they had. And that should not have happened because now there is so much ambiguity......

You are arguing the EXACT problem I was warned about in 1999. You are assuming that there is a 'program' that is absolute with perfect rules that get adhered to at every event..... When in reality each meet is a "fingers crossed" I hope the judges show up! I remember a STATE meet in 2001 where we lost the actual host location and the entire meet was improvised (#clusterf*ck). This is AcaDec. Whatever anyone wants to say about Rick, he brought stability and consistency to the state meet (at the Med school level). To challenge results because judges didn't show up is to challenge the very nature/flaw of AcaDec. Judges not showing up is the #1 concern of meet coordinators. Objectives on Saturday is a mindless piece of cake anyone can handle. FRIDAY is the hard part.People want to complain about subjectives for a location hosting for the first time ?!? omg, that was Large school for 12 to 13 years... every year. I remember El Paso meets for Large where 1,000s in subjectives were like candy at a parade! Nobody in Large bitched about that LOL. Bottom line... if you have the "stable meet" AND lost... you really lost.

I can't respond to most of this because I was 11 in 2001 haha. But I will say that in my 4 years of AcDec Rick has always been upfront with everything and at least in my opinion has done a great job.

This assumes that the 3rd judge would NOT have given a high score that scores even higher than 995.

If the 3rd judge would have given a higher score then that student would have received a 996.6 which would have still allowed the 993.3 to be third.

My student received 99/99/100 which got them a 993.3

The other student received a 99/100 which gave them a 995. If they would have got 99/100/100 they would have gotten 996.6 and been tied for 2nd, which still would have awarded our 993.3 3rd place.

Its not a matter of unfair judging because they are called subjectives for a reason. Its a matter of the advantage you may or may not receive with more/less judges. I don't care about the difference in judge opinions at the different meets (or even at a single meet). But the scoring values change when there are a different number of judges in the room and that can be a factor (as it may have been this year).

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from either team and its a shame that the kids have to suffer because of this.

I've been in meets where one judge also scores REALLY low. How do we know that the scores for a room were not 'really low' rather than the assumption that they were "really high".

Remember... Highland Park had the SAME judges as Lubbock. AND HP (specifically their coach) is someone I admire and respect for preparation more than anybody else in the state of Texas. Yet they were just as far behind Luboock in subjectives as Dulles was. For me, this is enough to signify that Lubbock WAS that much better in subjectives than everybody else....

it's time to prep for eNats or recruit for next year. An appeal is just sour grapes or DENIAL of the flawed program everyone is involved in. Get used to this flaw or quit coaching!

One of the HP coaches was one of the coaches I replaced at Rockwall so I can agree with what you say about him and can agree that whatever he does has usually ended with great results. But the same can be said for the counter argument: how do we know the scores for a room were not "really high" rather than them being "really low"? I said earlier that it is very possible that 3 judges in those rooms would have made no difference and Lubbock still would have won. I have no stake in this appeal and I don't like when coaches say that we lost because their subjectives were scored by "nicer" judges because that's the name of the game. It's a decathlon not a heptathlon. But if there was only one judge in the room, it is a clear violation of the "2-3 judges in each room" rule therefore this appeal holds some weight.

This assumes that the 3rd judge would NOT have given a high score that scores even higher than 995.

If the 3rd judge would have given a higher score then that student would have received a 996.6 which would have still allowed the 993.3 to be third.

My student received 99/99/100 which got them a 993.3

The other student received a 99/100 which gave them a 995. If they would have got 99/100/100 they would have gotten 996.6 and been tied for 2nd, which still would have awarded our 993.3 3rd place.

Its not a matter of unfair judging because they are called subjectives for a reason. Its a matter of the advantage you may or may not receive with more/less judges. I don't care about the difference in judge opinions at the different meets (or even at a single meet). But the scoring values change when there are a different number of judges in the room and that can be a factor (as it may have been this year).

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from either team and its a shame that the kids have to suffer because of this.

First off, "get used to subjectives or quit coaching" is great advice and so true. I've only been apart of this program for 4 years now and it may be the best advice I've heard to date.

However I don't think the main issue here is the essay grading, no matter how stable it was or wasn't. I think the main issue is the fact there was only 1 interview judge in the small/medium rooms when it is required in the handbook that there be 2-3 judges. It definitely can give an unfair advantage in respect to scores when you have more judges. For example, we had a student score a 993.3 in interview this weekend (which is the 3rd highest possible with 3 judges so should be 3rd) but they were not recognized for 3rd because another student received a 995 because they only had 2 judges.

I just think its a shame that it has to come down to this because both teams are excellent and it's unfair to the students from both teams because they worked their tails off all year and deserve an accurate placement. It is also possible that if there were no issues, the results would be the same, but now sadly these students will never know.

Dulles Speech/Interview was higher than Lubbock Speech/Interview. It was the Essay that covered the gap in objectives. Speech/Interview was a 'push'. There were TEN events that could have swung the final results. In this case, Essay was the event with the most glaring impact.

You're absolutely right. The biggest gap was the 914 point difference in essay scores. But all large/medium/small schools (i think) had the same essay graders so this shouldn't be a reason to appeal because they're subjectives and they are "subjectives" for a reason. But since the total scores were only 91.8 apart, the fact that one group didn't have interview scores that were averaged within a group of judges could easily have affected the outcomes. I don't think there would have been an appeal if one team won by 900 points. But since it is a double digit spread, there is a high possibility this could have been a huge deciding factor. Even though the team appealing was 268.3 ahead in interview.

I think the fact that HP (with the same judges as Lubbock) had similar gaps with Lubbock as Dulles lends credence to Lubbock simply outperforming both schools in subjectives. As for me, I'm from the same school of thought as most coaches: win the objectives (70% of the score)... yet once every 10 years or so the subjectives are the deciding factor. This was one of them. It's not like Lubbock was 2k behind in objectives. If we're going to have two separate meets, we simply will have to accept these types of results. 9 out of 10 times the team with the higher objectives ends up with the higher total. I'd play those odds every year. What we're saying otherwise is that when the 1 out of 10 happens we should throw out the 'proven' strategy for winning. Dulles had the higher objectives... just not high enough. Look at the objective gaps in previous years.

Again it is just a shame that there even has to be an appeal. But the competition manual states that there needs to be 2-3 judges. 1 judge in a room can really help (or hurt) teams and that's why they require you to have 2-3 judges. The overall result shouldn't be scrutinized when done correctly because thats the whole point of subjectives and being judged. The point I am making is that it seems unfair to have only 1 judge in a room (especially when the rules state there needs to be 2-3). If Lubbock would have been down by 91, I wouldn't blame them for appealing because they only had 1 judge and it easily could have been better with their scores being averaged with more judges. Just like I don't blame Dulles for appealing for the being on the opposite side of that argument.

Before everyone goes into a 'fit' over the results... this is an OLD storyline. 2004 we even had ALL schools in San Antonio to avoid such controversy. I remember coaches meetings in the Fall to discuss eliminating subjectives to avoid such issues.

All I can say is... Large schools now have the "stable" meet in San Antonio that Mediums enjoyed for a long time. Mediums are now in the 2nd year of the traveling show. Large schools used to complain that moving around year to year was a disadvantage. Here we are of two years reversed and Medium winner goes to Nats in both of those years. Large schools have the "stable" meet and STILL complain about fairness?

Essay, more than any other event, has frustrated coaches. We all have "stories" of "great kids" who scored "5 on AP" but got a 300ish on Essay at Region or State. My first year coaching, the coach at San Antonio Holmes (Julianna) told me "get used to subjectives or quit coaching". Man, was she right!

So goes this year's state meet. It is a classic case of Academic Decathlon's "get used to it or quit". Lubbock won the right to go to Nats on the results of Essays graded by a common group of Essay graders. It's not as if Large and Medium had 'different' essay judges. So within the format used for Essay, Lubbock was 800 pts better than the next two teams. Get used to it or quit.

First off, "get used to subjectives or quit coaching" is great advice and so true. I've only been apart of this program for 4 years now and it may be the best advice I've heard to date.

However I don't think the main issue here is the essay grading, no matter how stable it was or wasn't. I think the main issue is the fact there was only 1 interview judge in the small/medium rooms when it is required in the handbook that there be 2-3 judges. It definitely can give an unfair advantage in respect to scores when you have more judges. For example, we had a student score a 993.3 in interview this weekend (which is the 3rd highest possible with 3 judges so should be 3rd) but they were not recognized for 3rd because another student received a 995 because they only had 2 judges.

I just think its a shame that it has to come down to this because both teams are excellent and it's unfair to the students from both teams because they worked their tails off all year and deserve an accurate placement. It is also possible that if there were no issues, the results would be the same, but now sadly these students will never know.

Dulles Speech/Interview was higher than Lubbock Speech/Interview. It was the Essay that covered the gap in objectives. Speech/Interview was a 'push'. There were TEN events that could have swung the final results. In this case, Essay was the event with the most glaring impact.

You're absolutely right. The biggest gap was the 914 point difference in essay scores. But all large/medium/small schools (i think) had the same essay graders so this shouldn't be a reason to appeal because they're subjectives and they are "subjectives" for a reason. But since the total scores were only 91.8 apart, the fact that one group didn't have interview scores that were averaged within a group of judges could easily have affected the outcomes. I don't think there would have been an appeal if one team won by 900 points. But since it is a double digit spread, there is a high possibility this could have been a huge deciding factor. Even though the team appealing was 268.3 ahead in interview.

Before everyone goes into a 'fit' over the results... this is an OLD storyline. 2004 we even had ALL schools in San Antonio to avoid such controversy. I remember coaches meetings in the Fall to discuss eliminating subjectives to avoid such issues.

All I can say is... Large schools now have the "stable" meet in San Antonio that Mediums enjoyed for a long time. Mediums are now in the 2nd year of the traveling show. Large schools used to complain that moving around year to year was a disadvantage. Here we are of two years reversed and Medium winner goes to Nats in both of those years. Large schools have the "stable" meet and STILL complain about fairness?

Essay, more than any other event, has frustrated coaches. We all have "stories" of "great kids" who scored "5 on AP" but got a 300ish on Essay at Region or State. My first year coaching, the coach at San Antonio Holmes (Julianna) told me "get used to subjectives or quit coaching". Man, was she right!

So goes this year's state meet. It is a classic case of Academic Decathlon's "get used to it or quit". Lubbock won the right to go to Nats on the results of Essays graded by a common group of Essay graders. It's not as if Large and Medium had 'different' essay judges. So within the format used for Essay, Lubbock was 800 pts better than the next two teams. Get used to it or quit.

First off, "get used to subjectives or quit coaching" is great advice and so true. I've only been apart of this program for 4 years now and it may be the best advice I've heard to date.

However I don't think the main issue here is the essay grading, no matter how stable it was or wasn't. I think the main issue is the fact there was only 1 interview judge in the small/medium rooms when it is required in the handbook that there be 2-3 judges. It definitely can give an unfair advantage in respect to scores when you have more judges. For example, we had a student score a 993.3 in interview this weekend (which is the 3rd highest possible with 3 judges so should be 3rd) but they were not recognized for 3rd because another student received a 995 because they only had 2 judges.

I just think its a shame that it has to come down to this because both teams are excellent and it's unfair to the students from both teams because they worked their tails off all year and deserve an accurate placement. It is also possible that if there were no issues, the results would be the same, but now sadly these students will never know.